The Hinduism Thread

[roshan]

You deny God. Ok, fine.

What is the source and destination of reincarnation?

Please explain to me karma without mentioning a Godhead.

Reincarnation is a theological expediency to explain karma, which is again a theological carrot-and-stick to bribe and coerce the society to behave.

 

So, like a Jedi believes in The Force, a non-theistic Hindu believes in karma?

If you deny God as you assert, then, this force is completely blind and acts in some sort of Newtonian manner, acting on human actions?

 

This is still not what I would accept as atheism. At best t is Weak Atheism, and more properly considered some sort of spiritualism. You are playing fast and loose with semantics, to sneak in spiritualistic conceits like karma and the soul.

Karma has nothing to do with any sort of god. It is action and reaction on a metaphysical level. I would call it atheistic spirituality.

 

Since there are differing variants of non/a-theist Hinduism, Ill answer your question as per Advaita. Actually there is no such thing as soul, it is completely illusory. The physical world is superimposed on Brahman, a monistic absolute reality, which is pure consciousness. The human mind taps into Brahman producing the soul. The soul can be said to be a point within Brahman, and extending infinitely in all directions. Since Brahman is infinite, and the soul is infinite, they are identical - the only difference between them being the central point. However, in something that extends infinitely everywhere, there is no such thing as a central point. It is completely illusory - a product of the human ego. So the soul is fundamentally identical to Brahman the absolute reality. Upon overcoming ones ego and ignorance the soul ceases to exist.

 

From your link: "Strong atheists are those who accept as true the proposition, "god does not exist"." I am a strong atheist, not a weak one, based on the link you have provided.

 

Pol Pot was a ruthless tyrant who destroyed an entire country without any punishment. Without reincarnation, the concept of karma doesn't work. It fails right there. It's circular logic, requiring reincarnation to work, which relies on the concept of a "soul". I can't wait for you to tell me fromwards whence all these souls are coming and towards hence these souls are going.

 

A pointless 'point' as Hinduism accepts both Karma and Reincarnation. So again, what is the point of bringing up Pol Pot when discussing Hinduism which does accept reincarnation?

 

I see, it's all the fault of the British. (At least you aren't still claiming that there is a parity of child slavery in the developed countries now. )

 

So if it's all the fault of the eeeevil British, why (60 years after independence) is there still endemic child slavery, despite it being illegal?

 

The reason that (a lot of) blame is laid at the feet of Hinduism is that one of the tenets of the religion is karma: that people's fate is their own reward for past deeds. Hence, it is morally acceptable to exploit whomever can be exploited (the most vulnerable in society) as they have obviously been evil in a past life and can enjoy a better life next time. This ethical expediency is repugnant to me.

India has remained poor and backward because of the anti Hindu socialist elite of the country trained by the British. Extreme protectionism and bureaucracy in India prevented business, and thus jobs, and thus people had no opportunity to rise above poverty. Even Indias IT industry today was a complete accident - the government was so focused on controlling and running industry that they simply forgot to pass laws controlling information technology. It is only with the rise of the Hindu right in the early 1990s that Indias growth rates began to rise.

 

Actually karma encourages responsible behaviour because as per the theory of karma, everyone will experience the fruits of their actions, whether in this life or the next. Lefties naturally hate karma because, like capitalism, karma rewards and punishes based on individual merit. Leftists are just pissed off because they cannot "redistribute" good actions.

 

Poverty is endemic in India. 50% of the population are discriminated against by caste. 50% of the population are discriminated against by gender. (God help Backward Caste females.)

Let's do some basic maths, shall we?

1,100 million people - 200 million = 900 million people that are either upper class or below the poverty line.

Take a guess how many are in poverty.

And it's all the fault of the British why the literacy rate of women is STILL LESS THAN 50%, I suppose, too.

 

First of all, you are talking nonsense because the dalits, who are victims of caste, are only 16% of Indias population, not 50% as you claim - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalits

 

Second, poverty in India is only 17.59% today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India) - down from 62% about 1960. (refer to In Defense of Global Capitalism, by Norberg)

 

Third, Indias middle class now numbers 300 million - http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1854304,0002.htm

 

Fourth, rural poverty is being swiftly eradicated, and by 2010, Indias rural areas could have a middle class of about 250 million - http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1905817,0008.htm

 

This is the fruit of the rise of Hindu capitalism after 1 millenium of being oppressed by foreign ideologies.

 

The UN recently announced that educating women is the best and fastest way for a society to rise out of poverty.

 

Your hare-brained nonsensical (false-) reasoning is merely you trying to justify the misogynist status quo. (This is why the first tactic of a repressive regime is to take away the rights of women, to bribe the men in the society with free slaves.)

Get over it. You are wrong.

Of course educating women is necessary. But theres no money to educate them. Parents must prioritize those who are going to feed them in their old age. Those are their sons.

 

Illiteracy in India was created by the British as a means of subjugating Indians. Here is the testimony of British Brigadier General Andrew Walker on Hindus and education (1780)

 

"they sacrifice all the feelings of wealth, family pride and caste that their children may have the advantage of good education" "this desire is strongly impressed on the minds of all the Hindus. It is inculcated by their own system, which provided schools in every village."

 

In Ludlows British India, he writes: "in every Hindu village which has retained anything of its form ... the rudiments of knowledge are sought to be imparted; there is not a child... who is not able to read, to write, to cipher; in the last branch of learning they are confessedly most proficient"

 

Education in India was systematically repressed and destroyed by the British:

 

"According to Sir Henry Lawrence, there was one school for every 1783 inhabitants of the most backward division of the Punjab at the time of annexation. But thirty years later in 1881, "there is one school of whatever sort, to every 9,028 inhabitants", according the President of the Educational Commission"

 

This means that within 30 years of British annexing parts of India, they closed down 90% of the local schools. Heres more:

 

"W. Adam's Report of 1835 showed that in the then states of Bengal and Bihar, there were 100,000 indigenous elementary schools, or one school for every 31 or 32 boys of school-going age, as the author calculated. The Madras Report which was the most comprehensive showed that there were 12,498 schools containing 188,650 scholars. During the same period, schools of a similar nature were found scattered throughout the Bombay Presidency too. Leitner found that 8000 pupils still received their education in the indigenous schools of Punjab in spite or "the 26 years of repressive education of the Educational Department"

 

Even more:

"The teacher of an indigenous school was an idealist, but the system itself was founded on realistic public financial support. Schools were supported by the grant of rent-free lands and monetary assignments. During the British rule, this support was withheld or drastically curtailed. The data for rent-free lands to support local needs like the police, the temples, the education has not been fully worked out but that this portion was very large is beyond doubt. Dharampal shows that it was sometimes as large as 35% of the total land, and sometimes even 50%. Leitner gives the names of many hundreds of scholars who were endowed with such lands but whose grants were terminated and as a result of which the institutions they ran so well died down within a generation. The Collector of Bellary District wrote: "There is no doubt that in former times especially under the Hindu Government very large grants both in money and in land were issued for the sake of learning."

 

When the British started studying indigenous education, they had already been in control of the territory for over fifty years; and during these years much harm had already been done. The land grants were already stopped or curtailed. There was a general breakdown in the economy at large. The old classes which supported local institutions were impoverished. These and other causes combined to bring about a fast deterioration is the educational condition. Adam mentions many specific villages in Nattore Thana which at the time of investigation had only two schools where there had been once ten or eleven schools in living memory. The decay was fast."

 

Read more here: http://www.voi.org/books/ohrr/ch07.htm

 

Lots of statistics from the British themselves.

Edited February 1, 2007 by metadigital

[metadigital]

I'll have to do some research on Hindu culture (and read through all of your post ) before I can make any positive contribution to your second point, which I shall over the next little while.

 

 

In the meanwhile, for fun, let us discuss atheism.

 

You believe in Brahman, and you claim to be an atheist. Let's put this to logical rigour to establish your universal quantification. Formally we state the problem as below:

• Hypothesis: Brahman is not a godhead (given⇒roshan).
  (Corollary: roshan is an atheist.)
  Antithesis: Brahman is a godhead (less confusing to disprove a positive, than disprove a negative).
  

1. 
   
   
2. define Brahman
   We have two testable deterministic qualities:
   • Immanence
     
   • Transcendence
     

[*]Compare Brahman and Godhead

What are these metaphysical elements?

Immanence, derived from the Latin in manere "to remain within", refers to philosophical and metaphysical theories of the divine as existing and acting within the mind or the world. This concept generally contrasts or coexists with the idea of transcendence.

Observation: immanence is a theological concept used to describe the divine.

Immanence in religion

In worship, a believer in immanence might say that one can find God wherever one seeks Him. This understanding is often used in Hinduism to describe the relationship of Brahman or the Cosmic Being, to the material world. (i.e., monistic theism). Hinduism posits Brahman as both transcendent and immanent

[roshan]

So even here we see the central issue: Brahman is "God, without godhood" (whatever that is meant to mean).

 

Preliminary conclusion: I suspect this is to try to differentiate the "Personal God" (which can be described as a mode) of Judeo-Christianity ("call him 'Abba'") from the transcendent and immanent (q.v.) Godhead. In other words, god is infinite in existence and knowability and does not have a personal interface with creation. (Hence your "monistic" label.) In any case, I think "non-theistic religion" is much more accurate than "atheistic religion" as a label.

First of all, I want to clarify that Brahman has different meanings depending on the Hindu philosophical system. Brahman, which is the focus of Vedanta in its purest form(IE the Vedanta of the Brahmasutras of Badrayana), is merely a monistic absolute reality. I agree that Vedanta is non theist and not atheist. Vedanta accepts the Brahman, but does not comment on the existence of god, whether impersonal and unmanifested, or personal and manifested. God without godhood for describing Brahman is obviously a logical contradiction. It arises from trying to translate the concept of Brahman into English when there is no equivalent.

 

Later philosophies began to incorporate theistic concepts into Vedanta. The only later philosophy that continued to accept the idea of Brahman as a monistic absolute reality is Advaita Vedanta, started by Shankaracharya in 700 ad. In Advaita Vedanta, a pantheistic god was added to Vedanta, known as Saguna Brahman, in additional to the ultimate Brahman of Vedanta which is called Parabrahman or Nirguna Brahman. Saguna Brahman is a formless pantheistic god. Ishvar, or a personal god, is said to be a form/manifestation of Saguna Brahman. So, the personal god of Advaita Vedantist philosophy is Ishvar, while the impersonal is Saguna Brahman. Nirguna Brahman or Parabrahman which in Advaita is contrasted to Saguna Brahman, is not a concept of god at all, but a monistic absolute reality.

 

Later variations of Vedanta, such as Kashmiri Shaivaism, completely lost this concept of Brahman as an absolute reality, and only contrast the concepts of "Brahman"(pantheistic god in unmanifested/impersonal form) and "Ishvar"(personal god). Some of the later philosophies, such as Visishtadvaita even assigned positive attributes to Brahman, which means that gradually even the concept of unmanifested/impersonal god was lost. Dvaita, even later, completely denied the idea of a pantheistic god and only accepts "Ishvar".

 

Personally I follow pure Vedanta, not any of the later variations, with the addition that I deny the existence of either Saguna Brahman or Ishvara. So, I am an atheist. Atheism was propagated by Sankhya, which taught a dualistic system of matter versus consciousness.From Wikipedia: "The original school of Samkhya as founded by Sage Kapila was atheistic and does not admit the existence of God. There is no philosophical place for a creator in this system. The Samkhyan's argue that the existence of Ishvara cannot be proved and hence cannot be admitted to exist. The school also argues that an unchanging Ishvara as the cause cannot be the source of a changing world as the effect."

 

QUOTE(Immanence @ wikipedia)

Immanence, derived from the Latin in manere "to remain within", refers to philosophical and metaphysical theories of the divine as existing and acting within the mind or the world. This concept generally contrasts or coexists with the idea of transcendence.

 

Immanence in religion

In worship, a believer in immanence might say that one can find God wherever one seeks Him. This understanding is often used in Hinduism to describe the relationship of Brahman or the Cosmic Being, to the material world. (i.e., monistic theism). Hinduism posits Brahman as both transcendent and immanent — varying emphasis on either quality is made by the different philosophies/denominations within the religion.

 

This quote refers to immanence being a part of Hindu monistic theism, which refers to Saguna Brahman, or the pantheistic god that has manifested as the world, not to Parabrahman. Parabrahman is regarded as being akarta, or non agent, so it cannot 'act' within the mind or world, so it does not the criteria for immanence. Furthermore, the world (and even Saguna Brahman or the pantheistic god) is regarded as being a relative reality "superimposed" on Parabrahman. Rather than saying that Brahman is imminent within the universe, I would say that the world illusorily exists within Brahman.

 

In religion, transcendence is a condition or state of being that surpasses, and is independent of, physical existence. It is affirmed in some way of the divine in most major religious traditions, and is opposed to the notion of a God, or an Absolute, as existing only in the physical order and not beyond it (immanentism), or as being somehow, in the final analysis, indistinguishable from it (pantheism). Transcendence can be attributed to the divine[/color]not only in its being, but also in its knowabilty. Thus, one might not only affirm that God transcends the universe (exists beyond and independently of it), but also that He transcends knowledge (is beyond the grasp of the human mind). Although transcendence, as a concept, is the opposite of immanence in meaning, they are not mutually exclusive as complementary aspects of the divine's relationship to the physical order. Some theologians and metaphysicians of the great religious traditions will affirm that God, or Brahman, are both beyond and within the universe in it, but not of it; pervading it and surpassing it at once.

 

I agree that Brahman is transcendent, however, I dont agree that this means Brahman is a God.

 

You see it is impossible to describe Brahman without using theological terminology (for good reason): "divine" denotes Godhood. Notice that the Christian concept of God is identical.

I do not know why Wikipedia describes the ultimate Brahman as being divine. Divine means having a godlike nature. "God", if it exists, as in Advaita, is regarded as being illusory in comparison to Parabrahman, just like the physical universe. Thus, Brahman cannot be described as "divine".

 

3. contrast Brahman with Godhead

Perhaps Brahman has some extra quality, its haecceity that differentiates Brahman from Godhead.

 

Let us analyze some of the words used to describe God as per Wikipedia, which do not apply to Brahman:

 

Omniscient - Brahman does not have a mind, it does not think. Hence, it is not omniscient.

Omnipotent - Brahman does not act or perform any actions. It has no powers and no authority. Hence, it is not omnipotent.

Omniprescence - The universe is superimposed on Brahman

Perfect Goodness - Brahman has no emotions, hence, cannot be good, evil, or even neutral.

A Personal Being - Brahman is not even a "being", neither does it have a personality

Cause/Creator - Brahman is neither the cause, nor creator, of the universe.

Source of Moral Obligation - Brahman is not a source of moral obligation.

 

Now lets see how Brahman differs from God:

 

Akarta (non agent) - Brahman does not act, nor does it react. It does not influence, create or cause anything.

Infinite - Unlike God, which is "one", Brahman is infinite.

Nondual(advaita) - Aside from Brahman, nothing else exists.

Nirvisesha/Nirguna(without characteristics/atributes) - Brahman is said to be completely without characteristics or attributes

 

Brahman can be said to be not a God, but the monad of absolute monism. This concept does share the attribute of transcendence with the concept of a god but the differences are of a far greater magnitide. Nirvana in Yogachara Buddhism is a similar concept to Brahman, it is also an absolutely monistic cause of consciousness, said to be the only thing that exists. Would you also call this variation of Nirvana as a god?

Edited February 3, 2007 by roshan

[Jorian Drake]

Anything has to come from somewhere, you go back in 'time and space' and then realize you can't go more back because there has to be someone/something what created the following things.

 

This means someone/something had to start the circle of rebirth in your terms, and that is godhood.

 

 

 

 

This thread has lost its interesting part and now it is simply annoying, I suggest a closure.

[metadigital]

Anything has to come from somewhere, you go back in 'time and space' and then realize you can't go more back because there has to be someone/something what created the following things.

 

This means someone/something had to start the circle of rebirth in your terms, and that is godhood.

 

This thread has lost its interesting part and now it is simply annoying, I suggest a closure.

Don't spam the thread, Jorian. If it's not interesting to you, don't read it and definitely DON'T spam it.

Perhaps Brahman has some extra quality, its haecceity that differentiates Brahman from Godhead.

 

Let us analyze some of the words used to describe God as per Wikipedia, which do not apply to Brahman:

 

Omniscient - Brahman does not have a mind, it does not think. Hence, it is not omniscient.

Omnipotent - Brahman does not act or perform any actions. It has no powers and no authority. Hence, it is not omnipotent.

Omniprescence - The universe is superimposed on Brahman

Perfect Goodness - Brahman has no emotions, hence, cannot be good, evil, or even neutral.

A Personal Being - Brahman is not even a "being", neither does it have a personality

Cause/Creator - Brahman is neither the cause, nor creator, of the universe.

Source of Moral Obligation - Brahman is not a source of moral obligation.

 

Now lets see how Brahman differs from God:

 

Akarta (non agent) - Brahman does not act, nor does it react. It does not influence, create or cause anything.

So what is the point of Brahman, then? It doesn't add anything to the universe. All you are doing is adding a non-entity.

Infinite - Unlike God, which is "one", Brahman is infinite.

Nondual(advaita) - Aside from Brahman, nothing else exists.

Nirvisesha/Nirguna(without characteristics/atributes) - Brahman is said to be completely without characteristics or attributes

 

Brahman can be said to be not a God, but the monad of absolute monism. This concept does share the attribute of transcendence with the concept of a god but the differences are of a far greater magnitide. Nirvana in Yogachara Buddhism is a similar concept to Brahman, it is also an absolutely monistic cause of consciousness, said to be the only thing that exists. Would you also call this variation of Nirvana as a god?

The above quoted characteristics are all cited for godhead.

[roshan]

So what is the point of Brahman, then? It doesn't add anything to the universe. All you are doing is adding a non-entity.

Brahman isnt really a non entity. As a monadic, transcendental, universal principle, it isnt empty, zero or a void, but infinite, absolute and all-full. As per Advaita(and also Mahayana Buddhism), it isn't Brahman/Nirvana thats the non entity, but rather the physical universe(Maya/Sunyata) in comparison to Brahman. Brahman is said to be absolutely existent, as opposed to Maya which is relatively existent and ever changing.

 

Brahman is necessary to explain how the mind becomes conscious, and to explain further where the soul comes from, where it goes after liberation and what its nature is.

 

Anything has to come from somewhere, you go back in 'time and space' and then realize you can't go more back because there has to be someone/something what created the following things.

 

This means someone/something had to start the circle of rebirth in your terms, and that is godhood.

 

I disagree with the idea of Godhood. As far as I know, there is nothing in the universe that arises out of nothing at all. So the universe must have arisen from Godhood itself. If the universe comes from Godhood, then Godhood must be mutable. An unchanging cause cannot lead to the effect of the changing universe. If Godhood is mutable, then it can be destroyed. If Godhood is mutable and destructible, then what distinguishes it from physical existence, when it is subject to the same flaws?

 

Also, if you say that the universe comes from Godhood, then where does Godhood come from? Why answer the question of where the universe comes from with Godhood when that just raises another question about where Godhood comes from?

[metadigital]

So what is the point of Brahman, then? It doesn't add anything to the universe. All you are doing is adding a non-entity.

Brahman isnt really a non entity. As a monadic, transcendental, universal principle, it isnt empty, zero or a void, but infinite, absolute and all-full. As per Advaita(and also Mahayana Buddhism), it isn't Brahman/Nirvana thats the non entity, but rather the physical universe(Maya/Sunyata) in comparison to Brahman. Brahman is said to be absolutely existent, as opposed to Maya which is relatively existent and ever changing.

 

Brahman is necessary to explain how the mind becomes conscious, and to explain further where the soul comes from, where it goes after liberation and what its nature is.

...

Also, if you say that the universe consciousness comes from Godhood Brahman, then where does Godhood Brahman come from? Why answer the question of where the universe consciousness comes from with Godhood Brahman when that just raises another question about where Godhood Brahman comes from?

Ironic that I can use your own reply to rebut your reply.

[roshan]

But Brahman is consciousness itself

 

PS. That is not to say that Brahman thinks or feels as thoughts and feelings are products of the mind. Rather consciousness in the Hindu context refers to something that leads to awareness of thoughts and feelings, not the thoughts and feelings themselves.

[metadigital]

Why don't you explain this notion a bit more, because it's not very clear to me.

 

Does consciousness (awareness of thoughts) scale? Does a person have more than a dog, who have more than an insect? What is the point of giving consciousness (or awareness) a new label?